Mitt Romney Scandals

[Juan_Bottom]

Romney owns $8 billion of Bain, Bain owns 51% (controlling) of Sensata. Romney is fully aware of what's happening in Freeport, he just doesn't care. You cannot serve both God and Money.



And to be fully clear, this is a non-union plant that made record profits. But they're trying to squeeze every penny out of it that they can.

[Night Strike]

Let's assume that all of that is true. How is it the government's job to become involved? What authority does the government have to tell a business where it is allowed to have its shop? If a company wants to move operations overseas, especially away from an environment where the current president wants to do everything in his power to make taxes and regulations skyrocket, why don't they have the freedom to do that? Should businesses also be forbidden to close down because people will lose jobs?

[Juan_Bottom]

Let's assume that all of that is true. How is it the government's job to become involved? What authority does the government have to tell a business where it is allowed to have its shop? If a company wants to move operations overseas, especially away from an environment where the current president wants to do everything in his power to make taxes and regulations skyrocket, why don't they have the freedom to do that? Should businesses also be forbidden to close down because people will lose jobs?

1) Pre-NAFTA we had laws that prevented businesses from shipping Jobs overseas. Republicans AND Democrats axed it, and they thought they were doing the right thing.

2) Republicans have blocked several measures to bring jobs to America, including the American Jobs Act, and the Bring Jobs Back to America Act, both of which were fully funded and would not have added to the national debt. Both could have saved Sensata-Freeport and Honeywell.
I would also add the fully-funded Veterans Jobs Bill, which Republicans also blocked. But that one wouldn't have helped Sensata-Freeport.

3) This isn't a government issue; this is a issue that voters have with Mitt Romney. When he profits from an immoral business deal, then it's ok because American's are all about profit. The consequences of his dealings are ignored. So when these fired workers need unemployment benefits or welfare because Bain prefers the Chinese system, then they are freeloading moochers who are adding to our national debt.
Mitt Romney could step in anytime and save these jobs. He could. But he wont. Instead he'll just take the money. Like Jesus would do.

[Night Strike]

I find it ironic that liberals decry any perceived lack of (approved) morals in businesses but demand that any morality be removed from the government.

[Juan_Bottom]

I find it ironic that you believe your morality is derived from your religion, then try forcibly impose your morals on the rest of us through government.

I find it ironic that a follower of Christ supports a politician who behaves the opposite way of Christ.

I also find it ironic that a fucking atheist is the one who's always pointing this shit out.

[Night Strike]

So no Christian person can own a business or make a profit because an atheist deems it as ungodly?

[Juan_Bottom]

So no Christian person can own a business or make a profit because an atheist deems it as ungodly?

No Christian can profit from someone else's suffering. Ever.

[Night Strike]

So no Christian person can own a business or make a profit because an atheist deems it as ungodly?

No Christian can profit from someone else's suffering. Ever.

Businesses aren't charities. If a person has long-term suffering because their employer closed or left, then that's their own fault for not finding a new job. Why should the owner of a business suffer without pay or profits just so other people can have a job?

[Juan_Bottom]

So no Christian person can own a business or make a profit because an atheist deems it as ungodly?

No Christian can profit from someone else's suffering. Ever.

Businesses aren't charities. If a person has long-term suffering because their employer closed or left, then that's their own fault for not finding a new job. Why should the owner of a business suffer without pay or profits just so other people can have a job?

I don't have to argue with you. The Bible says "love they neighbor." It says "you cannot serve both God and Money."

That plant made record profits last year. No one at Bain is suffering an inch for lack of profits. If Jesus were here, you believe that he would ship the whole factory to China to make even more money?
No, of course you don't think that he would do that to his own neighbors. But Mitt Romney would. He doesn't care a wink what happens to these people.

[Night Strike]

Mitt Romney no longer owns and manages Bain Capital. As for not having two masters: seeking profit does not make money that person's master. And people can still love their neighbor; that doesn't mean they have to give them a job.

[Juan_Bottom]

As for not having two masters: seeking profit does not make money that person's master. And people can still love their neighbor; that doesn't mean they have to give them a job.

I strongly question that. The company is already making record profits. The only reason that they are closing the plant is because the Chinese will work for $1 a day. They want all the money. You cannot both "love your neighbor" and also fire them for needing honest pay for all the money they are making you.

See I feel bad for you. You've been backed into a place where you feel you still have to defend Romney's financial decision to profit from the firing of hard-working Americans. We both know that with his $8 million dollar ownership of Bain and his national celebrity he could intervene in many ways to keep those jobs in America. These people are hard workers who have made their company a lot of money, and they've earned the right to continue working.
So why doesn't he stop this? It's because he loves money more than he loves his neighbors. He loves money more than he loves America. He's no follower of Christ; he's a bad guy.

[Woodruff]

I find it ironic that liberals decry any perceived lack of (approved) morals in businesses but demand that any morality be removed from the government.

When have liberals demanded that morality be removed from the government? Surely you don't equate religion with morality, do you Night Strike?

[thegreekdog]

Let's assume that all of that is true. How is it the government's job to become involved? What authority does the government have to tell a business where it is allowed to have its shop? If a company wants to move operations overseas, especially away from an environment where the current president wants to do everything in his power to make taxes and regulations skyrocket, why don't they have the freedom to do that? Should businesses also be forbidden to close down because people will lose jobs?

1) Pre-NAFTA we had laws that prevented businesses from shipping Jobs overseas. Republicans AND Democrats axed it, and they thought they were doing the right thing.

2) Republicans have blocked several measures to bring jobs to America, including the American Jobs Act, and the Bring Jobs Back to America Act, both of which were fully funded and would not have added to the national debt. Both could have saved Sensata-Freeport and Honeywell.
I would also add the fully-funded Veterans Jobs Bill, which Republicans also blocked. But that one wouldn't have helped Sensata-Freeport.

3) This isn't a government issue; this is a issue that voters have with Mitt Romney. When he profits from an immoral business deal, then it's ok because American's are all about profit. The consequences of his dealings are ignored. So when these fired workers need unemployment benefits or welfare because Bain prefers the Chinese system, then they are freeloading moochers who are adding to our national debt.
Mitt Romney could step in anytime and save these jobs. He could. But he wont. Instead he'll just take the money. Like Jesus would do.

The Bring Jobs Back to America Act would not have been fully funded. The cost of the benefits (to businesses) would have shifted from the federal government to state governments. I read the press release on the bill and it's full of bullshit rhetoric, but the basis for the bill is something we already do. We already encourage investment in the US by businesses through credits and incentives at the federal, state, and local levels (which is basically what this bill does too). There a myriad of reasons why companies go overseas with their jobs and the list includes less regulation, less money to employees, lower tax rates, better qualified employees, etc. The bill doesn't appear to fix any of those problems.

[Woodruff]

I don't know if it's really a "scandal", so much as a bit revolting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/romney-some-gays-are-actu_b_2022314.html

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's assume that all of that is true. How is it the government's job to become involved? What authority does the government have to tell a business where it is allowed to have its shop? If a company wants to move operations overseas, especially away from an environment where the current president wants to do everything in his power to make taxes and regulations skyrocket, why don't they have the freedom to do that? Should businesses also be forbidden to close down because people will lose jobs?

1) Pre-NAFTA we had laws that prevented businesses from shipping Jobs overseas. Republicans AND Democrats axed it, and they thought they were doing the right thing.

2) Republicans have blocked several measures to bring jobs to America, including the American Jobs Act, and the Bring Jobs Back to America Act, both of which were fully funded and would not have added to the national debt. Both could have saved Sensata-Freeport and Honeywell.
I would also add the fully-funded Veterans Jobs Bill, which Republicans also blocked. But that one wouldn't have helped Sensata-Freeport.

3) This isn't a government issue; this is a issue that voters have with Mitt Romney. When he profits from an immoral business deal, then it's ok because American's are all about profit. The consequences of his dealings are ignored. So when these fired workers need unemployment benefits or welfare because Bain prefers the Chinese system, then they are freeloading moochers who are adding to our national debt.
Mitt Romney could step in anytime and save these jobs. He could. But he wont. Instead he'll just take the money. Like Jesus would do.

In other words,

1) "International trade is bad for the US." (NAFTA actually is not free trade. There's plenty of regulations within it which benefit American corporations a la crony capitalism, so NAFTA in many cases does benefit particular US companies. That's an important point to realize about what JB is criticizing yet overlooking here).

2) "Acts A and B would've saved corporations X and Y, and (presumably) would have created a disincentive for US companies to outsource beyond nationalist boundaries." (How strong is that disincentive--especially when compared to (1) increased taxes, (2) the expectation of increased taxes, (3) arbitrary US punishments against corporations (Lehman Brothers, US purchasers of Chinese solar panels, etc.), (3) more regulation which is becoming more vague, (4) the "fiscal cliff," (5) political uncertainty and incompetence, etc.?)

3) "I don't like what Bain did; they should've stayed in the US." (JB needs to focus on the benefits of voluntary trade, and how this offers opportunities to non-Americans. Of course, being nationalist he will reject that notion--much to the detriment of significantly poorer people outside of the US.)

(And if an increase in applicants of welfare/job insurance is viewed as negative, then JB's own criticism becomes involved in government, thus it becomes a government issue, which he denies. This is odd--and contradictory. And again, if he's mentioning consequences, then it would be wise for him to examine the consequences and incentives producers and consumers face in regard to issues such as 1-5 from #2.)